AuusieDave

A few more issues, expanding on previous items.

- This is a new body, no current organisations are being made defunct per se.

- It appears to be "merely" an occassional advice conduit to the Minister, and not much more. And an "add-on" organisation at that.

- Who will be performing the current peak body functionality and routine grunt-work of DEWNR and PIRSA departmental liaison, talking to SABCPFA, councils... dam access, artificial reefs, etc etc?

- Who will all those other parties approach as needed?

- Will RFSA be in a position to do this once the MRFAC is established, and/or once their funding is (presumably) pulled? Hardly think so. Then who will do all this and how will it be done? Or is it expected that "someone" will carry out all these tasks without any operational expenses funding support...from their loungeroom whenever they (hopefully) have a spare half hour here and there?

- No mention of ANY funding for recfishing representation other than reasonable travel reimbursement for any regional members of the MRFAC.

All I am seeing is an umbrella coalition with a specific role of a Ministerial advice council - this is not a VRFish, RecFishWest, AFANT etc "peak body" representative organisation which has to deal with the daily/weekly grind of multitudinous matters.
It very much appears that we may have gone down the road of "never mind the quality, feel the width"...

Evening all,
Agree with the previous posts, although I think 'apathy' might be a bit strong. 'Apathy' has been an overused cop-out term within SA Rec fishing circles for decades. Although it certainly does exist, "apathy' doesn't mean the same thing as "I want change, but I can't be buggered fighting with the SA rec fishing system", and if surveys are going to be distorted or ignored - why bother?
But regardless of anyone's level of interest, it's hard to engage with a representative system that didn't work very well and didn't welcome 'outsiders'. The SA rec fishing representative system was poorly constructed, poorly managed, completely underfunded and totally ignored by successive Governments, and there hasn't been much incentive for anyone to put their hand up to work within it. Those that have are truly dedicated and should be thanked instead of kicked.
Reckon people mostly want to do the right thing and would contribute where they can; especially on the issues that are directly affecting them - or will affect them. But no-one wants to become a punching bag for anyone in the rec community who disagrees with their views, while at the same time they have to try to promote their views into a system that simply doesn't want to have to deal with them. I don't think that's apathy - it's a sign of a failed system.
 
For what it's worth, a bit of a brain dump on the new Council (as described so far):-
Two biggest problems:-
1 No funding (Govt actually saves $125K per year)
2 No one to do the work.
Others
3. How will the RFC members meet outside of the 3 (whatever) times per year so that they can co-ordinate the workload (to be done by whoever), and raise new issues that are not on the Govt agenda?
4. No initiative to pull everyone together. Hostilities between the warring groups are continuing even now, and without some mediation to settle things down the infrequent RFC meetings will be unproductive shit fights.
5. There is no specification around organisational representative nominations to the RFC – do nominees need to be democratically elected by their membership?
6. PIRSA will “assist” at the infrequent meetings. But they should be a RFC member, with the Chair of the RFC reporting to (advising) the Minister of the agreed RFC outcomes. As it is, PIRSA retain their pre-eminent position and can block whatever they don’t like, regardless of the RFC's position. (eg to the Minister: "The RFC advises this, but PIRSA and SARDI recommend that instead".)
Overall the new RFC (as described) offers no change, backward step if anything.
The 4 named RFC organisations represent (membership) about 20,000 rec fishers in SA (my guess), so there are still more than quarter of a million SA rec fishers who won’t be connected to the system. The RFC needs to have a fully funded portal that is independently and impartially run (website + forum) that will provide a connection that is open to all rec fishers in SA, so that anyone can raise any issue and state their own opinion without being censored. There need to be regular (monthly?) public meetings of the RFC that are open to all comers and fully documented to the public via whatever media is available. Probably won’t get much meeting attendance – but that’s not the point. Point is that any rec fisher can rock up, witness what goes on, and have a say if necessary. I don’t think they really intended it this way, but the Govt's new RFC arrangement (as described) will just be a more effective ‘tick-the-box’ - with no improvement in representation for the bulk of the 277,000.
The people who agitated for change and fought the good fight didn’t do enough forward planning, just like George Bush’s victory in Iraq. Amendments to planning and design of the new system need to be done now – before the RFC is put in place, else we’ll quickly return to confusion and anarchy.
My 2 bob's worth, thanks for your time. Corrections very welcome.
Cheers,
RJ

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, the shit has hit the fan at work and my internet activity at work is now being monitored and I usually only use the internet at work, it's fair enough I guess. Generally I have family commitments until about 9PM each night so it's hard to find time.
What I wanted to say is what we really need is a real Rec Fishing Peak Body that represents not just rec fishers but the rec fishing industry (tackle/bait/boat stores, caravan parks/hotels/motels/holiday house owners, regional towns (the pub, bakery, servo, supermarket, coffee shops). This rec fishing peak body should be independent of government but should be able to lobby the tourism and sports and rec departments for them to pressure PIRSA/Primary Industries department to take them in to consideration when deciding on fisheries matters or preferably a seat at the table in decision making.
What suprises me is that the rec fishing industry doesn't seem to be able organise itself to do this, they are the ones with the most to lose. I don't believe the government will make any economic considerations in favour of the rec fishing industry unless they have faces themselves, it is obvious that actual rec fishers can scream about economic return until the cows come home but we aren't the ones economically effected so it is ignored.
I think a new real rec fishing peak body is also needed as there is a lot of bad blood between the different groups, RecFishSA/SAFA/RecFishCentral, and neither will accept anything other than an equal place at the table, this could be achieved by placing the new real peak body and a neutral coordinator above them. I believe that all of these groups have the best interest of rec fishing at heart although compromises have been made in order to have a seat at the table to try and have at least some influence.
So what I see that we need is a new real rec fishing peak body that has two representatives.
One for rec fishers that liaises with groups like SAFA, RecFishSA, RecFishCentral, Northern Districts Sports Fishing Club, SAAFWA, etc., treats each group equally and each group gets equal representation for decision making. I think individual rec fishers should also be included here but there would have to be some type of weighting as SAAFWA for example represent many rec fishers.
Another representative for the rec fishing industry that liases with groups like tackle stores, boat stores, caravan parks, i.e. those that benefit financially from rec fishing. All groups would receive equal status which would also be equal status with the previously mentioned actual rec fishers.
The thing is that the more I think about this issue the amount of work explodes and who is going to do the work?
Each group/member would need some type of membership to allow them to log in to a website and vote for issue they want the peak body to represent them on, i.e. a democratic system.
The peak body can then represent rec fishers and the rec fishing industry both to the media and to lobby the government.
At the moment we have a system where hobby fishers are opposed to well funded union/association(business union) representation from commercial fishers and we don't stand a chance.
 
Just my thoughts guys.
 
Dave

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, the shit has hit the fan at work and my internet activity at work is now being monitored and I usually only use the internet at work, it's fair enough I guess. Generally I have family commitments until about 9PM each night so it's hard to find time.
What I wanted to say is what we really need is a real Rec Fishing Peak Body that represents not just rec fishers but the rec fishing industry (tackle/bait/boat stores, caravan parks/hotels/motels/holiday house owners, regional towns (the pub, bakery, servo, supermarket, coffee shops). This rec fishing peak body should be independent of government but should be able to lobby the tourism and sports and rec departments for them to pressure PIRSA/Primary Industries department to take them in to consideration when deciding on fisheries matters or preferably a seat at the table in decision making.
What suprises me is that the rec fishing industry doesn't seem to be able organise itself to do this, they are the ones with the most to lose. I don't believe the government will make any economic considerations in favour of the rec fishing industry unless they have faces themselves, it is obvious that actual rec fishers can scream about economic return until the cows come home but we aren't the ones economically effected so it is ignored.
I think a new real rec fishing peak body is also needed as there is a lot of bad blood between the different groups, RecFishSA/SAFA/RecFishCentral, and neither will accept anything other than an equal place at the table, this could be achieved by placing the new real peak body and a neutral coordinator above them. I believe that all of these groups have the best interest of rec fishing at heart although compromises have been made in order to have a seat at the table to try and have at least some influence.
So what I see that we need is a new real rec fishing peak body that has two representatives.
One for rec fishers that liaises with groups like SAFA, RecFishSA, RecFishCentral, Northern Districts Sports Fishing Club, SAAFWA, etc., treats each group equally and each group gets equal representation for decision making. I think individual rec fishers should also be included here but there would have to be some type of weighting as SAAFWA for example represent many rec fishers.
Another representative for the rec fishing industry that liases with groups like tackle stores, boat stores, caravan parks, i.e. those that benefit financially from rec fishing. All groups would receive equal status which would also be equal status with the previously mentioned actual rec fishers.
The thing is that the more I think about this issue the amount of work explodes and who is going to do the work?
Each group/member would need some type of membership to allow them to log in to a website and vote for issue they want the peak body to represent them on, i.e. a democratic system.
The peak body can then represent rec fishers and the rec fishing industry both to the media and to lobby the government.
At the moment we have a system where hobby fishers are opposed to well funded union/association(business union) representation from commercial fishers and we don't stand a chance.
 
Just my thoughts guys.
 
Dave

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, the shit has hit the fan at work and my internet activity at work is now being monitored and I usually only use the internet at work, it's fair enough I guess. Generally I have family commitments until about 9PM each night so it's hard to find time.
What I wanted to say is what we really need is a real Rec Fishing Peak Body that represents not just rec fishers but the rec fishing industry (tackle/bait/boat stores, caravan parks/hotels/motels/holiday house owners, regional towns (the pub, bakery, servo, supermarket, coffee shops). This rec fishing peak body should be independent of government but should be able to lobby the tourism and sports and rec departments for them to pressure PIRSA/Primary Industries department to take them in to consideration when deciding on fisheries matters or preferably a seat at the table in decision making.
What suprises me is that the rec fishing industry doesn't seem to be able organise itself to do this, they are the ones with the most to lose. I don't believe the government will make any economic considerations in favour of the rec fishing industry unless they have faces themselves, it is obvious that actual rec fishers can scream about economic return until the cows come home but we aren't the ones economically effected so it is ignored.
I think a new real rec fishing peak body is also needed as there is a lot of bad blood between the different groups, RecFishSA/SAFA/RecFishCentral, and neither will accept anything other than an equal place at the table, this could be achieved by placing the new real peak body and a neutral coordinator above them. I believe that all of these groups have the best interest of rec fishing at heart although compromises have been made in order to have a seat at the table to try and have at least some influence.
So what I see that we need is a new real rec fishing peak body that has two representatives.
One for rec fishers that liaises with groups like SAFA, RecFishSA, RecFishCentral, Northern Districts Sports Fishing Club, SAAFWA, etc., treats each group equally and each group gets equal representation for decision making. I think individual rec fishers should also be included here but there would have to be some type of weighting as SAAFWA for example represent many rec fishers.
Another representative for the rec fishing industry that liases with groups like tackle stores, boat stores, caravan parks, i.e. those that benefit financially from rec fishing. All groups would receive equal status which would also be equal status with the previously mentioned actual rec fishers.
The thing is that the more I think about this issue the amount of work explodes and who is going to do the work?
Each group/member would need some type of membership to allow them to log in to a website and vote for issue they want the peak body to represent them on, i.e. a democratic system.
The peak body can then represent rec fishers and the rec fishing industry both to the media and to lobby the government.
At the moment we have a system where hobby fishers are opposed to well funded union/association(business union) representation from commercial fishers and we don't stand a chance.
 
Just my thoughts guys.
 
Dave

Sorry guys, we've had some urgent issues with some of our largest clients this week so I've been flat out all week at work.
It looks like you guys have put in some great work there RJ in terms of rec fishing representation for rec fishers.
I kind of think we need to be looking at making a real peak body for rec fishing and the rec fishing industry. I believe our position is undermined by the fact that the commercial sector is regarded as more important than rec fishing as they are an industry while we are just hobby fishers exercising our hobby and not really creating any economic value to the state. I believe we need a peak rec fishing body which represents rec fishers and fishing clubs but also the rec fishing industry, i.e. the bait/tackle/boat stores, caravan parks/motels/holiday house owners and regional business councils.
I'll try and find some time to knock up a bit of a diagram of how I believe it would be structured over the weekend.
I think we are at a critical time where if rec fishers stay divided rec fishing in this state will be dead but if we can unite and try to understand each others positions and compromises to work together we can ensure the future of rec fishing and hopefully improve it vastly.

Reckon you're right Barney, but no-one seems to want to run an economic survey, and maybe the only way to prove it's true would be to get bums on seats in an environment where the Govt will have to listen - eg as members of their own RF Council.
Cheers,
RJ

All of them live in the box labelled "Others".
IT people love Flow charts and Org charts and Gantt charts - just about any kind of chart.
- mostly because we only speak Geek 🙂
Cheers,
RJ

Our economic value to the state is actually far higher than that of the commercial sector.....

Apologies all, I don't know how, but I screwed up and uploaded the same file 3 times. Correct versions are attached for those interested.
I think that if you're confronted with a brick wall (PIRSA), it's better to try and find a way around it rather than to continue to bash your head.
I don't think that anyone outside of the organisation really knows why PIRSA act as they do, and I guess they have their reasons. But even so, a way has to be found to improve things. Perhaps one way would be to change the reporting structure at the top (political) level so that alternate voices can be heard, and that's what I'm suggesting here.
Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
RJ
Org Chart 1.pdf
Org Chart 2.pdf
Org Chart 3.pdf

I don't think you'll find too much argument with that point of view AD, but whether that situation persists in this brave new world seems to depend upon the structures that are put in place by the Govt. and the way that these are organised. As things have so far been described (very sparsely), RFSA will become just one input into the decision making process, rather than the only input. But it's how the overall new fisheries management structure is designed that will make the biggest difference.
For example (similar to RFSA), if PIRSA themselves were to become one shared input into the parliamentary decision making process rather than the only input to the Minister (or delegate), we might see a whole range of other social and economic issues gain much more precedence in future Government policy considerations. 
I've put together several different "possible" crude organisational charts <attached> to try and demonstrate how this could occur.
It seems to me that right now we have an opportunity to reform this system completely (assuming a Government committed to reform - which seems to be the case).
Although crucial to everyone here and in urgent need of fixing, the issues within the rec fishing community are not part of this.
For whatever it's worth, I believe that individual issues such as SBT, KGW, Carp virus, Coorong Seals or even equitable allocation of resources between sectors should be put on the back-burner until this new management structure is sorted out - after which (hopefully) the right people will be making decisions for the right reasons and will be agreed by the majority.
Could it happen? I don't know.
Cheers,
RJ
Org Chart 1.pdf
Org Chart 2.pdf
Org Chart 3.pdf

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I am commenting on what I believe a rec fishing peak body should be and I understand that you guys are talking about the reality of the current situation and the compromises that you have had to make just to have some skin in the game.
 
These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger and give rec fishers an impression only that they have some representation enabling PIRSA to work against the interests of rec fishing while saying that they are helping rec fishers.
Oversight of any rec fishing body needs to be separated from the Primary Industries portfolio as rec fishing is not a Primary Industry but a sports and rec industry with tourism having a giant stake.
I will say that PIRSA have done one good thing, they commissioned the study into Shark Shields proving that they are effective against even breaching GWS's, as a kayak fisher I appreciate this although they would have done it for commercial divers and not rec kayak fishers.
 
Do you guys really think that the commercial fishers unions like the MFA take fairness to rec fishing into consideration when lobbying for their members?
Did the commercial sector reps take the
approach to KGW bag limits?
It is very concerning to hear that RecFishSA are required to be secretive about what happens in negotiations, what are PIRSA trying to hide?
A peak Rec Fishing representative body needs to mirror the fairness that the commercial sector shows rec fishers so that a happy compromise can be reached. If we are fair to them and they are not fair to us the result of a compromise will be unfair to rec fishers.
 
Three cheers to all volunteers that have tried to further the cause of rec fishing, I and I think many others are very grateful for your efforts.

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I am commenting on what I believe a rec fishing peak body should be and I understand that you guys are talking about the reality of the current situation and the compromises that you have had to make just to have some skin in the game.
 
These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger and give rec fishers an impression only that they have some representation enabling PIRSA to work against the interests of rec fishing while saying that they are helping rec fishers.
Oversight of any rec fishing body needs to be separated from the Primary Industries portfolio as rec fishing is not a Primary Industry but a sports and rec industry with tourism having a giant stake.
I will say that PIRSA have done one good thing, they commissioned the study into Shark Shields proving that they are effective against even breaching GWS's, as a kayak fisher I appreciate this although they would have done it for commercial divers and not rec kayak fishers.
 
Do you guys really think that the commercial fishers unions like the MFA take fairness to rec fishing into consideration when lobbying for their members?
Did the commercial sector reps take the
approach to KGW bag limits?
It is very concerning to hear that RecFishSA are required to be secretive about what happens in negotiations, what are PIRSA trying to hide?
A peak Rec Fishing representative body needs to mirror the fairness that the commercial sector shows rec fishers so that a happy compromise can be reached. If we are fair to them and they are not fair to us the result of a compromise will be unfair to rec fishers.
 
Three cheers to all volunteers that have tried to further the cause of rec fishing, I and I think many others are very grateful for your efforts.

Here is where I disagree Kon.
Unfortunately we have to play the game of politics and we, or especially our representatives, need to exaggerate or case equally to what the MFA are, rec fishers are responsible for overfishing, pffft, lets attack those that take less than 5% of the fish, lets fiddle while Rome burns, this way we can come to a fair compromise, the politicians can save face by giving neither side exactly what they wanted but by giving both sides some of what they wanted.
An example of this is the KGW bag limits where the rec survey asked if we were willing to take a cut in the interests of sustainability, I and I believe most rec fishers checked yes and for that fairness we had a reduced bag limit while the users that take the majority of the KGW, the commercial sector, had no reduction, that's what being fair gets you, it gets you screwed over.
Unfortunately our representatives need to be a squeaky wheel as it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil not the one that is fair and not squeaky.

I think you have hit the nail on it's head there Wahoo.
It's the secrecy that is bad, why is PIRSA so afraid of the truth if they are 'the best fisheries managers in the world'? What are they trying to hide?
Your post sums up everything that is wrong with RecFishSA. What we need is representation and that representation must be public and not behind closed doors. How can they lobby/fight for change in such a secretive arrangement? What we need is representation for rec fishers that is independent of PIRSA, are RecFishSA allowed to publicly lobby against PIRSA? How do they stand up for us when they are not allowed to stand up? Would RecFishSA be allowed to arrange a protest where we all take our boats in to North Terrace to fight a PIRSA decision?
What we really need is for RecFishSA to become part of either the Tourism or Sports and Recreation departments and be cut free of PIRSA so that they can fight for the beneficiaries of rec fishing (bait/boat/tackle stores, regional tourism operators and regional towns) against Primary Industries that don't care any more for these rec fishing beneficiaries than they did for Holdens workers.
Oh, and I'm in the IT business making software for the building industry so my only interest is rec fishing as a rec fisher.

Hi Jay,
 
Do you have any affiliation to any other groups that might have a stake? Your responses seem familiar, like I've heard them before?
I tend to agree with you there about jumping the gun, in reality nothing has changed... yet. There's still no representation of rec fishers.
If you're so knowledgable about the history of the Marine Parks issue you should also know that SAFA and RecFishCentral were created in response to the betrayal felt from recFishSA at the time.
 
So you agree with robbing the South Australian economy of economic activity as the recs taking their boats out to get their own crabs has a significantly higher economic return than just selling the crabs to interstate and overseas markets. If you feel this passionate about local South Australian locals that can't get their own crabs do you then support a ban on any exports of these crabs to interstate and overseas markets? It'd be great all South Aussies would have fresh cheap quality seafood, at the current prices they can only afford crappy Mekong Delta fish.
There's the issue right there, you might be able to fish multiple times a week but most rec fishers are lucky to get on the water once a month so one feed is not really enough, this needs to be doubled.
But the average size of a SA SBT is 8 to 10kg, even down the South East. an 8kg SBT will give you about 4.5kg of meat, how much a kilo is that one fish once you tow your boat to the launch and do the massive k's to access the fish? $100/kg
I agree that no-one needs two barrels, a split limit like Snapper is best.
Come on mate, are you serious?
Maybe it's that the people you socialise with are not actually rec fishers, the fishermen with better boats and technology are the commercial fishermen, if that's the angle you're coming from, yes you would of course be very happy with the non-representation that RecFishSA provides us.
I'm glad you have travelled the world and seen what is at stake if we can't get any decent fisheries management, PIRSA's 'optimal utilisation' method of destroying a fishery and then waiting decades for it to recover is extremelly dangerous.
Painters and Dockers style representation is exactly what we're missing, there is absolutely no representation of rec fishers, we should be parking all our fishing cars/boats in North Terrace, you know that thing called democracy French farmer style.
Unfortunatelly RecFishSA doesn't represent rec fishers to PIRSA they represent PIRSA to rec fishers and this is why they have to go as they are supposed to be representing the rec fishers to PIRSA.
 
Dave

Hi mrfish,
 
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
 
In relation to SAFA's science, they may be misinterpreting some of the data but from what I see PIRSA/RecFishSA just make up the data they want to support what they want, complete privatisation of the public resource that is our salt-water fishery. I assume you agree that PIRSA/RecFishSA's science is equally if not more flawed. See I would have said that reducing the rec bag limits while increasing the commercial take for a species would be demonstrating a massive lack of ecological understanding, surely you agree with this? As a Doctor of Aquatic Ecology you would understand that unless the total amount harvested is decreased it is a reduction in sustainability which seems to be what PIRSA believes to be an increase in sustainability, gotta let those grandkids catch a fish... 😉
In relation to the Marine Parks, I too agree with the principle, what I believe was a massive act of bastardry was asking all the recs where they fish and locking up those spots, this is a very bad approach, I would have thought this should have been a scientifically based, i.e. Marine Biologists/Aquatic Ecologists study the fish and state where a park would do most good. I think this is why so many people are against them. Personally it is only the one at Port Augusta that bothers me as it's taken my only chance at catching a SA Dolphin Fish away from me.
I think the previous points lead into the next point on bag limits, I only have to feed my father and myself so the bag limits are fine for me, but many rec fishers have a lot more mouths to feed than me. The point about bag limits is two fold, firstly the survey asked if we rec fishers are willing to have lower bag limits if it improves sustainability (assumed of the fishery), most rec fishers including me said yes but well, we all know what happened rec fishing bags were slashed and the pro's got extra quota resulting in a greater number of fish harvested resulting in a less sustainable fishery while being told it's to make it more sustainable. Convoluted, yes, but this is how PIRSA and RecFishSA operate, by betrayal. The second point only really relates to SBT's at the moment and that is 'who would tow their 20 foot boat with their big 4X4 down to Cape Jervis or Encounter Bay, motor the 90kms out to the Pages only to catch one 8kg SBT?' (anyone know the cost of this operation?), a split limit like we have with Snapper would work fine, 1 > 25kg or 2 < 25kg. But hang on we're not talking about the actual limits, we're talking about the representation we are getting which seems to be none.
I agree 100% about the export of prime species to interstate and overseas markets, the commercial sector, if they are genuine about wanting to put fresh fish on the plates of locals, would have to support this export ban. This would also force the price down and make local fresh fish an option for local South Australians again also helping the commercial sector to fulfill their desire to feed the locals. I suspect they aren't genuine about this and only say it to throw some smoke in front of the mirror.
I also agree that something will have to give with larger populations but hey, we're stagnant SA that isn't growing in population so the increased demand on the fishery is only due to better technologies and techniques utilised by the commercial sector. The economic value of the resource is far greater from rec fishing so some rec fishers may have to go the way of Holdens workers as they can't generate the optimum economic benefit for the state.
This is a bit side-tracked though, the question is are we being represented properly? No
 
Peace out dude and thanks for your contribution.
 
Dave

Hi Jay,
I notice that you seem to be very anti SAFA/RecFishCentral, is this because you are happy with the status quo?
I'm assuming as this is a rec fishing site that you are here as a rec fisher, do you believe RecFishSA has and is doing a good job of representing rec fishers?
Were you happy with RecFishSA's representation in the following issues;
Marine Parks. Blue Swimmer Crab bag limits. Blue Swimmer Crab commercial season opening at the beginning of December just to make sure there was no metro crabs left by Christmas for recs. KGW bag and possession limits. The amount of noise they are currently making RE. cutting the Southern Bluefin Tuna bag in half. I'm interested if you feel RecFishSA represented you strongly enough on the above issues?
 
A bit about myself, I'm not aligned with SAFA or RecFishCentral, I'm just a passionate Rec Fisher and believe me I hold them to account too (check the dark side), I have no allegiance to SAFA, RecFishCentral or RecFishSA.
I think SAFA and RecFishCentral at least have whats best for rec fishers in mind in what they are doing, I've been scrutinising them for about 18 months now and have not seen them put a foot out of place. I disagree with their assumption that because they did a deal with the Libs the Libs are going to do anything about the peoples resource being privatised and it all being moved to a pro resource, I believe that is against Liberal ideology but they are confident that they have a deal with government so until such time as we have a Rec Fishing Council that fails to make a difference or not I'm reserving my judgement.
RecFishSA, well, they have proven to be unable to represent rec fishers on the above issues, I've talked to Danny Simpson and given him the benefit of the doubt as these could be reflective of previous personnel of RecFishSA and asked him to prove to me that RecFishSA under him is better but the crickets I'm hearing over the SBT issue seems to be giving me the answer.
So we have a situation of no representation under RecFishSA or to try something different. A wise man once said that continuing to do the same thing expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity, are we insane?
 
Dave

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I am commenting on what I believe a rec fishing peak body should be and I understand that you guys are talking about the reality of the current situation and the compromises that you have had to make just to have some skin in the game.
 
These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger and give rec fishers an impression only that they have some representation enabling PIRSA to work against the interests of rec fishing while saying that they are helping rec fishers.
Oversight of any rec fishing body needs to be separated from the Primary Industries portfolio as rec fishing is not a Primary Industry but a sports and rec industry with tourism having a giant stake.
I will say that PIRSA have done one good thing, they commissioned the study into Shark Shields proving that they are effective against even breaching GWS's, as a kayak fisher I appreciate this although they would have done it for commercial divers and not rec kayak fishers.
 
Do you guys really think that the commercial fishers unions like the MFA take fairness to rec fishing into consideration when lobbying for their members?
Did the commercial sector reps take the
approach to KGW bag limits?
It is very concerning to hear that RecFishSA are required to be secretive about what happens in negotiations, what are PIRSA trying to hide?
A peak Rec Fishing representative body needs to mirror the fairness that the commercial sector shows rec fishers so that a happy compromise can be reached. If we are fair to them and they are not fair to us the result of a compromise will be unfair to rec fishers.
 
Three cheers to all volunteers that have tried to further the cause of rec fishing, I and I think many others are very grateful for your efforts.

Yep, the best fisheries managers in the world.

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I am commenting on what I believe a rec fishing peak body should be and I understand that you guys are talking about the reality of the current situation and the compromises that you have had to make just to have some skin in the game.
 
These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger and give rec fishers an impression only that they have some representation enabling PIRSA to work against the interests of rec fishing while saying that they are helping rec fishers.
Oversight of any rec fishing body needs to be separated from the Primary Industries portfolio as rec fishing is not a Primary Industry but a sports and rec industry with tourism having a giant stake.
I will say that PIRSA have done one good thing, they commissioned the study into Shark Shields proving that they are effective against even breaching GWS's, as a kayak fisher I appreciate this although they would have done it for commercial divers and not rec kayak fishers.
 
Do you guys really think that the commercial fishers unions like the MFA take fairness to rec fishing into consideration when lobbying for their members?
Did the commercial sector reps take the
approach to KGW bag limits?
It is very concerning to hear that RecFishSA are required to be secretive about what happens in negotiations, what are PIRSA trying to hide?
A peak Rec Fishing representative body needs to mirror the fairness that the commercial sector shows rec fishers so that a happy compromise can be reached. If we are fair to them and they are not fair to us the result of a compromise will be unfair to rec fishers.
 
Three cheers to all volunteers that have tried to further the cause of rec fishing, I and I think many others are very grateful for your efforts.

With respect AD,
To achieve any outcome at all, the place to do that would be in the yet-to-be-created Fisheries Council - not social media - and in order to achieve a good outcome for rec's, the arguments put to that overriding Council by our representative(s) will need to be 100% valid, supported by facts and (somehow) agreed by the majority of recs's.
With the election of a new Government the entire face of fishing politics in SA has changed, and we need to change with it. There is no place for continued attacks between members of the rec fishing community. Different points of view should result in respectful discussion and eventual compromise, not short term point scoring.
May be worth remembering that every person who becomes seriously involved in rec fishing representation in this State is a volunteer *, and we will need them all if we're going to progress. There really aren't that many - never has been.
I believe that we have from now until the official formation of the Recreational Fishing Council to get our act together, else the current divisions between our existing organisations will simply be carried into the business of that Council - to the detriment of the entire SA rec community.
Right now the primary focus of our existing organisations should be on overall organisation of the SA rec sector, not individual fishing issues (KGW, SBT etc). We get one chance to get the foundations right.
Cheers,
RJ
* For about 40 years, the only paid rec fishing representatives in SA have been the successive Executive Officers of SARFAC/RFSA.

AussieDave, your "representation firmness" post well received.

Just a couple of real-world pragmatic points;
- In my (albeit rather limited) personal experience, the "just say no" approach is futile and, in fact, counterproductive.
- "playing the game of politics" and an absolutist "not one step back, comrades" are, with respect, mutually exclusive concepts in a PIRSA office. Been there, I can assure you the latter is not an option, it is what it is. Maybe the new RFAC can somehow do better for some reason, who knows... but the "feedback and advice" duty statement [hmmm, a caveat indicator perhaps, even at this stage?] flagged by TPTB at this time does not fill me personally with much confidence in that regard.

Those issues aside, RJ nailed another matter of relevance;

 


Finally, seems we may be waiting a little while yet for any substantial outcomes - from the latest PIRSA "Fish Facts" advice;

"Recreational fishing groups and the broader community will soon be engaged in consultation regarding the process of formation, structure and function of the new body."

All rather wet cement. And to those, even altruistically, pushing for a "change" - careful what you wish for.